Forum Financial Data & Donations

[The Atheist]

Hahahaha - You're the one who kept insisting you knew more about that kind of thing than the others initially.

In general terms, that appears to be the case.

In terms of JREF - I've stated several times that I have no idea what their particular system does.

It's still factual that getting the information is simple - depending on the desire, which may not exist.

I talk to Terry a fair bit, so I kinda already knew.

But it doesn't matter if it's Apache, IIS, or nginx. The only way it would collect the sort of information TA wants is if it was specifically coded to do so, and the effort/benefit ratio there doesn't seem to make it worthwhile.

Again - a lengthy example of apologetics on the basis of no knowledge at all.

Terry appears to be a volunteer for the forum, and almost cretainly has no input or ability to retrieve information from the JREF accounting system.

But hey, don't let facts get in the way of a good story.

I do find it cute that the fan club is doing headless chicken impressions - all to cover up for the fact that no information has been posted yet.

 

[Morrigan]

In general terms, that appears to be the case.

In terms of JREF - I've stated several times that I have no idea what their particular system does.

Yet you keep insisting that geez, either their servers are inferior to magical kiwi technology, and that this information is obviously being tracked (or "sitting there" on the server), and if not well goshdarnit they sure are sloppy. I could forgive your ignorance if you hadn't been so hilariously pretentious about it.

Why don't you just admit that you are clueless about the technology and good practices, that you were quite simply wrong, and give up your inane argument?

 

[Cleon]

Again - a lengthy example of apologetics on the basis of no knowledge at all.

You mean, aside from a rather in-depth knowledge of web servers, web application development, and software engineering?

No, no, I have no knowledge at all.

Terry appears to be a volunteer for the forum, and almost cretainly has no input or ability to retrieve information from the JREF accounting system.[

But hey, don't let facts get in the way of a good story.

You're absolutely right, don't let facts get in the way of a good story.

Like the fact that I never said, implied, or hinted that Terry has that sort of ability.

More TA bullster.

I do find it cute that the fan club is doing headless chicken impressions - all to cover up for the fact that no information has been posted yet.

"Cover up." Yeah.

We told you the information wasn't going to be available. We even explained why.

The JREF, mysteriously, didn't provide the information.

But you caught on. You got us. We're just "covering up" for the JREF. Because...Well, I don't know why we're "covering up," or what we're actually supposed to be covering up for. It's just something we do, I guess.

Do you even think about these things before you post? Or are you really infatuated with yourself that, despite all the evidence to the contrary, you still genuinely believe you have some sort of legitimate point?

 

[The Atheist]

Yet you keep insisting that geez, either their servers are inferior to magical kiwi technology, and that this information is obviously being tracked (or "sitting there" on the server), and if not well goshdarnit they sure are sloppy.

As I keep saying, I know it's quite possible, because we keep track of that data.

Whether JREF does is anyone's guess.

And yes, I do consider it sloppy if they don't. A non-profit that doesn't know where its money is coming from? I'd call that sloppy, no matter whether your turnover's $10,000 or $10,000,000.

Like the fact that I never said, implied, or hinted that Terry has that sort of ability.

More TA bullster.

Bullster?

You said:

I talk to Terry a fair bit, so I kinda already knew.

Now, let me see... the thread is entitled Forum Financial Data and Donations and the entire discussion has been about the financial data of the forum, so when you refer to Terry as a technical expert, you are clearly referring to his knowledge on forum financial data.

Now, you never meant to use Terry as a technical expert on forum financial data.

And pointing it out is bull....

Ok.

"Cover up." Yeah.

Given that not one of you has any relevant information, but keep posting, what else would I think?

You don't have access to the information, and you've already admitted that you don't know anything about the JREF accounting system.

You're posting endless screeds of speculation in a thread which can be answered in a one-line post.

It seems awfully like covering up to me. I'm not implying that there's any kind of concerted covering up involved, but the endless speculation is getting in the way of the only point that matters:

The information or an explanation hasn't been posted.

We told you the information wasn't going to be available. We even explained why.

Laughable.

Predictable, but laughable. See previous paragraph. Keerist, this just makes me choke on my Earl Grey Tea - if you expect the kind of "evidence" posted here so far to be any kind of authority, you'd be a raving deist or something else equally "woo".

Oh no, that's right - you are!

Evidence, sunshine. You ain't got none. As I keep explaining, until someone with some authority - i.e. from JREF - posts either the information, a denial, or an reason why it isn't, all you've done is wave your arms.

Or, in your case, your flag.

The JREF, mysteriously, didn't provide the information.

Still hasn't.

I think a Sylvia Browne-style clock ought to do the trick.

 

[Cleon]

Bullster?

You said:

I talk to Terry a fair bit, so I kinda already knew.

Yes, I said that, in response to this statement: "I have the means to verify it (a simple glance at the site's response headers will do the trick), and I just did: randi.org does run on an Apache 2.0 server."

So, as is obvious to anyone reading my post, I was referring to the fact that I already knew the JREF forum was running Apache.

Nothing to do with accounting. That's something you just plain old made up.

Now, you never meant to use Terry as a technical expert on forum financial data.

And pointing it out is bull....

Ok.

No, lying about it (as you are) is bull. Why you feel the need to lie about something so trivial, I don't know, but your inability to admit error seems to prevent you from doing otherwise.

Given that not one of you has any relevant information, but keep posting, what else would I think?

You don't have access to the information, and you've already admitted that you don't know anything about the JREF accounting system.

Because it has nothing to do with the JREF accounting system, genius. It's got to do with the web site, and how web sites work.

You're posting endless screeds of speculation in a thread which can be answered in a one-line post.

Wrong.

It seems awfully like covering up to me.

I know it does, because acknowledging reality would mean admitting that you really have no idea what you're talking about. And that's simply not an option.

I'm not implying that there's any kind of concerted covering up involved,

That's what the phrase "cover up" means, genius.

The information or an explanation hasn't been posted.

No, no, it hasn't. Amazing, isn't it?

You post your request. We explain that it isn't feesible to get the information you want. And, mysteriously, the information doesn't get posted!

It's absolutely mind-boggling.

Laughable.

Predictable, but laughable. See previous paragraph. Keerist, this just makes me choke on my Earl Grey Tea - if you expect the kind of "evidence" posted here so far to be any kind of authority, you'd be a raving deist or something else equally "woo".

Oh no, that's right - you are!

Ooh, more bullster. And you even managed to work in the bit about how I've committed the horrible crime of not being an atheist, which pretty much establishes that you've got nothing.

Actual content: Zero.

Evidence, sunshine. You ain't got none.

Evidence for what? Evidence that web servers work the way I say they work?

Go to www.apache.org. All the information is there.

As I keep explaining, until someone with some authority - i.e. from JREF - posts either the information, a denial, or an reason why it isn't, all you've done is wave your arms.

Or, in your case, your flag.

So you're going to keep on ranting about stuff you don't know about, until...Well, we really don't know. I assume at some point you'll get tired, and go looking for some other way to try and grab attention for yourself.

Still hasn't.

And won't. So either figure out a way to cope with this disappointment, or get on with your life.

I think a Sylvia Browne-style clock ought to do the trick.

Riiiiight. Good luck with that. I imagine it'll be taken as seriously as your "$2 million challenge."

 

[hcmom]

You said:

I talk to Terry a fair bit, so I kinda already knew.

Now, let me see... the thread is entitled Forum Financial Data and Donations and the entire discussion has been about the financial data of the forum, so when you refer to Terry as a technical expert, you are clearly referring to his knowledge on forum financial data.

Now, you never meant to use Terry as a technical expert on forum financial data.

And pointing it out is bull....

Ok.

Actually, the conversation went like this:

Besides, I don't even need to assume anything: I have the means to verify it (a simple glance at the site's response headers will do the trick), and I just did: randi.org does run on an Apache 2.0 server.

I talk to Terry a fair bit, so I kinda already knew.

It seems fairly obvious that he was citing Terry as being a source of knowing technical information, not financial...

 

[Delscottio]

And yes, I do consider it sloppy if they don't. A non-profit that doesn't know where its money is coming from? I'd call that sloppy, no matter whether your turnover's $10,000 or $10,000,000.

I must admit I'd be very surprised if income streams weren't monitored by any organisation simply for evaluation purposes to see whats working and whats not etc.


But TA, after reading this thread, why are you so interested?

From reading this and other threads there seems to be some sort of "problem" between you and the JREF, so I suppose I am asking do you have an ulterior motive for this request? If I have this wrong apologies.

Anyway continue with the bickering everyone, nothing better than a good argument over pretty much pointless stuff!

 

[The Atheist]

It seems fairly obvious that he was citing Terry as being a source of knowing technical information, not financial...

Thanks for that - it being the only part Cleon's mentioning which even bears comment.

I know - but since the topic is Forum Financial Data and Donations it was completely irrelevant, so worth playing with, because it highlights the fact that he doesn't have access to the information and is therefore stating the worthless.

I must admit I'd be very surprised if income streams weren't monitored by any organisation simply for evaluation purposes to see whats working and whats not etc.

Ah, a sensible person!

Thank god for that.

But TA, after reading this thread, why are you so interested?

Long story, which is pointless to recount now, but as I said in the OP, the trigger was a christian forum publishing the information because it wanted its members to know. I wondered whether the same spirit of openness would exist at JREF.

At least that question's been answered.

From reading this and other threads there seems to be some sort of "problem" between you and the JREF, so I suppose I am asking do you have an ulterior motive for this request? If I have this wrong apologies.

No, that's a fair assumption, so there's no need to apologise.

It is wrong, though.

Anyway continue with the bickering everyone, nothing better than a good argument over pretty much pointless stuff!

Makes a change from religion!

And it keeps bumping the thread which is all to the good.

 

[Lrrr]

As I keep saying, I know it's quite possible, because we keep track of that data.

Perhaps you could share what web software you are using and what you use to track this data. There appears to be a number of posters in this thread who do web development for a living and this could be an excellent tool in their arsenal. I doubt that what you are using needs to be a secret.

 

[Morrigan]

As I keep saying, I know it's quite possible, because we keep track of that data.

*facepalm* Why do you keep moving the goalposts?

Nobody said it was impossible to track this data. All we are trying to tell you is that a) it cannot be tracked automatically i.e. without a bit of coding, and b) right now it isn't being tracked.

Whether JREF does is anyone's guess.

We don't need to guess.

And yes, I do consider it sloppy if they don't. A non-profit that doesn't know where its money is coming from? I'd call that sloppy, no matter whether your turnover's $10,000 or $10,000,000.

You have no idea what you're talking about. Just because they don't know something as specific as whether donations come from clicks from the forum or not, does not mean they "don't know where the money is coming from". The JREF has determined that this very specific bit of information is not necessary or interesting to its operations. Since I also have a website that receives occasional donations, I tend to agree. I have a a similar "Support us" link in the site's footer, and if someone clicks it, they'll be taken to an explanation page with a Paypal button, on which they can click to send a Paypal payment. I don't care if the visitor has clicked on the footer link from page A or page B, because it is of no interest to me.

Now, if I were running a commercial, for-profit website with different banner ads and links all leading to money-making operations, I'd want to know which banners transform best, so I'd include a tracker, indeed. But that would be a completely different situation.

You don't have access to the information, and you've already admitted that you don't know anything about the JREF accounting system.

*more facepalm*
Web development is a different beast than accounting. You kept babbling on about how the data was "just sitting there" and argued that it was possible to determine how much of the donations came from the forums based on this so-called data. This has nothing to do with accounting, and everything to do with the technological implementation of the online donations: ergo, web development.

The information or an explanation hasn't been posted.

The information hasn't been posted because it's not available, it doesn't exist. And the explanation as to why it's not available lies in the technical implementation, which you persist in trying to refute despite knowing nothing about it.

Laughable.

Indeed.

 

[theprestige]

As I keep saying, I know it's quite possible, because we keep track of that data.

How?

Please provide evidence to support this claim, which is your basis for assuming that JREF can keep track of this data, here in this thread where you ask JREF to provide this data. If you can't support this claim with evidence (e.g., a vendor's website or other documents describing such a tracking system, or your own technical description of your own implementation of such a system), please withdraw it immediately, and admit that you have no basis to assume JREF can keep track of this data.

 

[The Atheist]

How?

Refer my previous post.

 

[theprestige]

Refer my previous post.

Done and done!

 

[NobbyNobbs]

Terry appears to be a volunteer for the forum, and almost cretainly has no input or ability to retrieve information from the JREF accounting system.

You know this for a fact? Because you said you don't make assumptions, and this kinda sounds like one.

I know - but since the topic is Forum Financial Data and Donations it was completely irrelevant,

The title may be "Forum Financial Data and Donations", but it seems pretty obvious the topic is "is this data available, and if so, how can it be gotten?" Since that's the case, I'd say the manner in which the website tracks the data is extremely relevant.

Originally Posted by Delscottio
From reading this and other threads there seems to be some sort of "problem" between you and the JREF, so I suppose I am asking do you have an ulterior motive for this request? If I have this wrong apologies.

No, that's a fair assumption, so there's no need to apologise.

It is wrong, though.

No ulterior motives? And yet...

Not so much condescension as awareness that breaking Rule 11 can lead to banning, and as a sworn enemy of JREF, I can't have that.

 

[The Atheist]

You know this for a fact? Because you said you don't make assumptions, and this kinda sounds like one.

Well, going by the posts so far, it looks correct, and Terry's been in the thread to refute it if he was able to. Along with that, it would be very unusual for an organisation to give accounting access to a volunteer forum technician.

It's not impossible, but I think it's a long way from an assumption.

No ulterior motives? And yet...

I thought that was recognisable as humour, but maybe you haven't seen the relevant thread where there's been more than a little discussion along those lines.

 

[theprestige]

Well, going by the posts so far, it looks correct,

Assumption.

and Terry's been in the thread to refute it if he was able to.

Assumption: that Terry cares to refute it.

Along with that, it would be very unusual for an organisation to give accounting access to a volunteer forum technician.

Assumption: That therefore JREF hasn't done it. (Implied)

It's not impossible, but I think it's a long way from an assumption.

Assumption: You assume it's a long way from an assumption.

I thought that was recognisable as humour, but maybe you haven't seen the relevant thread where there's been more than a little discussion along those lines.

Assumption: You assumed it was recognizeable as humor.
Assumption: You assumed Nobby had seen the relevant thread. (Implied)

Based on the forgoing, I'm quite happy to assume that The Atheis(t) assumes that he doesn't make assumptions, but is, in fact, mistaken.

 

[The Atheist]

Based on the forgoing, I'm quite happy to assume that The Atheis(t) assumes that he doesn't make assumptions, but is, in fact, mistaken.

No problem, I'll admit to anything as long as the only points which matters aren't lost:

Does the JREF have the information?

Is it going to make it available?

 

[Ocelot]

OK Folks, I can't tell you how much the Forum generates through donations but I can give you an idea how much it costs to run.

First we see where it is with a tracert.

 20   181 ms   185 ms   185 ms  67.228.115.46-static.reverse.softlayer.com [67.
28.115.46]

Then we go to their site and see what they offer. - Nice range.

http://www.softlayer.com/servers_dedicated_4m_details.html

Narrow it down a bit with a forum search to see what gorgeous hunk of silicon this thing runs on.

Quad Processor Quad Core Intel 7320 - 2.13GHz (Tigerton) - 4 x 4MB cache,
8 GB FB-DIMM Registered 533/667, 74GB SATA Raptor 10k, 73GB SA-SCSI 10K RPM, 1x Terry managment system

Oooh tasty.

Spec it up using the softlayer online configurator

Datacenter
Seattle
Server
Quad Processor Quad Core Intel 7320 - 2.13GHz (Tigerton) - 4 x 4MB cache
$699.00
First Hard Drive
74GB SATA Raptor 10k
$20.00
Second Hard Drive
73GB SA-SCSI 10K RPM
$30.00
Initial Charge
$749.00

... and that's all an ongoing monthly charge. $749.00 per month, This includes 2000 GB bandwidth per month. I figure that's more than enough.

That's the market rate. I don't know if the JREF gets it cheaper or if they've taken some of the extras that raise the cost, but it should give you an idea.

I don't know about anyone else but I feel kinda humbled that someone should shell out so much moolah just so we can call each other names.

 

[theprestige]

No problem, I'll admit to anything as long as the only points which matters aren't lost:

Does the JREF have the information?

Is it going to make it available?

The only points which matter to you. In fact, this is another assumption you're making. It's quite clear that other people have different opinions about where this discussion is going, and how much the original topic will be broadened.

Also I find it a little bizarre that after going to such lengths to dismiss other people's arguments as being mere assumptions, and self-righteously proclaiming that you would not stoop to arguing by assumption, you're so quick to sell out that principle in order to pursue... this as your "only points which matters[sic]"?

 

[The Atheist]

I don't know about anyone else but I feel kinda humbled that someone should shell out so much moolah just so we can call each other names.

And if it makes a profit?

What if the "woo" ads create a large profit? Would you still be humbled?

The only points which matter to you. In fact, this is another assumption you're making.

Now, there's no assumption involved there, because I started the thread and I know what matters, which is:

The two questions repeatedly repeated.

Also I find it a little bizarre that after going to such lengths to dismiss other people's arguments as being mere assumptions, and self-righteously proclaiming that you would not stoop to arguing by assumption, you're so quick to sell out that principle in order to pursue... this as your "only points which matters[sic]"?

Oh my god, I had a typo!

As to selling out, you can take it any way you like, but the sole point of this thread was to find answers to the questions, so I don't mind what "principles" I have to relieve myself of in the meantime. (especially when they really don't matter anyway)

Still waiting.

 

[NobbyNobbs]

And if it makes a profit?

What if the "woo" ads create a large profit? Would you still be humbled?

Is that what this is all about? You wanted to find out if this not-for-profit organization was making a profit? Why didn't you just say so in the first place?

As to your questions, I believe Ocelot has answered them.

 

[The Atheist]

Is that what this is all about? You wanted to find out if this not-for-profit organization was making a profit? Why didn't you just say so in the first place?

No, you're confusing my answer with something else. That answer & question were specifically aimed at the statement:

"I feel kinda humbled that someone should shell out so much moolah just so we can call each other names."

If the forum is making a profit, then it isn't "shelling" anything out, and in fact doing the exact opposite, in which case I wondered whether he/she would still be humbled by it.

As to your questions, I believe Ocelot has answered them.

He's given some costing details, but since I didn't ask about costs, it's not relevant at all and doesn't answer either question, which I will repeat yet again:

Does the JREF have the information?

Is it going to make it available?

 

[Morrigan]

This has already been answered. The JREF does not have this information. Since the information does not exist, it cannot be available to anyone. The end.

 

[The Atheist]

This has already been answered.

False.

The JREF does not have this information. Since the information does not exist, it cannot be available to anyone. The end.

Are you an employee of JREF?

If not, you are unable to give that answer.

 

[recursive prophet]

Heh. Hang in there TA. Probably lots like myself rooting for you that don't have time to get caught in this whirlwind. Isn't JREF a non-profit, and required to make this kind of info accessible? Sorry if this has already been covered. I've read most of the thread but it's a lot to remember.

 

[The Atheist]

Isn't JREF a non-profit, and required to make this kind of info accessible? Sorry if this has already been covered. I've read most of the thread but it's a lot to remember.

I certainly don't blame you for not reading it all.

No, the information isn't required to be available, although the formal accounts of the JREF must be publicly available. Forum income and expenditure in the filed accounts aren't broken down into components.

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

Ah, special pleading fallacy.

 

[The Atheist]

Ah, special pleading fallacy.

Oh go on - do tell me how asking a simple question is special pleading?

This is just the most fascinating thread I've ever been involved in.

 

[six7s]

The JREF does not have this information. Since the information does not exist, it cannot be available to anyone. The end.

Are you an employee of JREF?

If not, you are unable to give that answer.

Hi TA,

What makes you think that the information does exist?

 

[The Atheist]

Hi TA,

What makes you think that the information does exist?

We know for sure that ad income details exist, because they will be advised by Google.

We know for sure that forum running cost details exist, because there are invoices which show the amounts payable.

We don't know that specific donation information exists relating to forum donors vs JREF donors, but I think it's likely that it does. Someone running an organisation largely on donations would naturally like to know where the income comes from.

Along with that, there's a far simpler method of showing approximate donation income, if the actuals aren't available. Take the usual donation amount - which I would guess is reasonably constant - and subtract the last one with no forum donation button from the first one since its placement.

It won't be precise, but would give an indication.

Alternatively, as I've mentioned a number of times, there were a couple of options open to JREF:

"We don't have that information"

"We don't wish to publish that information"

Instead, they seem to have taken the Mark Todd approach and are saying nothing at all.

 

[Darat]

We know for sure that ad income details exist, because they will be advised by Google.

...snip...

Do we?

We don't know that specific donation information exists relating to forum donors vs JREF donors, but I think it's likely that it does.

...snip...

Answered on the first page:

The "Donate to the JREF click here" takes you to the standard JREF donation page. It's not asking for a donation directly for the Forum and there is no way to even mark the donation as "coming from the Forum".

 

[The Atheist]

Do we?

Yep

Answered on the first page:

False.

It is possible that the JREF may not know where the data comes from, but that it can be done is no longer in dispute.

Unless, of course, you are advising, as a JREF employee, that you have access to the financial system and that the information does not exist. If so, please clarify.

 

[theprestige]

It is possible that the JREF may not know where the data comes from, but that it can be done [URL="http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=138961"]is no longer in dispute.

Aw, heck, I'll dispute it.

Perhaps there's a difference between "the system as currently implemented does not support such a tracking option" and "the system could be modified by a skilled professional to support such a tracking option".

Thus, both Darat and The Atheist could be correct: Such a thing could be done, but the current system doesn't do it, and those that administer the current system are not qualified to make the changes necessary to do it.

I wonder if TA would be willing to accept this interpretation, in the interests of advancing the discussion.

I further wonder if Darat or some other Forum admin type would be willing to stipulate that this is what they meant, in the same interests.

 

[The Atheist]

I wonder if TA would be willing to accept this interpretation, in the interests of advancing the discussion.

I've said several times that an official comment that the data isn't held would satisfy that part of the question.

So far, all we have is speculation.

 

[theprestige]

I've said several times that an official comment that the data isn't held would satisfy that part of the question.

So far, all we have is speculation.

And Darat's explanation above doesn't count? It seems like it not only meets, but exceeds your criteria: The data isn't held, and cannot be held.

What's not to like?

 

[The Atheist]

And Darat's explanation above doesn't count? It seems like it not only meets, but exceeds your criteria: The data isn't held, and cannot be held.

What's not to like?

I'm pretty sure that Darat, as a volunteer forum administrator, would not have access to JREF's accounting systems, ergo, he is speculating.

I'm waiting for him to confirm or refute that.

 

[Cleon]

I'm pretty sure that Darat, as a volunteer forum administrator, would not have access to JREF's accounting systems, ergo, he is speculating.

I'm waiting for him to confirm or refute that.

One more time:

YOU DON'T NEED ACCESS TO THE ACCOUNTING SYSTEM TO KNOW THIS.

I simply cannot fathom why you refuse to accept this.

 

[The Atheist]

One more time:

Ah, the school of "write it in large letters to make it come true".

Seems to work well for psychics, telepaths and others, so I'm not surprised you'd try it.

I've always found that asking the person in charge of the accounting function is the best way of getting financial information. As opposed to a volunteer forum worker who lives in another country entirely.

But you keep that shouting going!

 

[Cleon]

Ah, the school of "write it in large letters to make it come true".

Seems to work well for psychics, telepaths and others, so I'm not surprised you'd try it.

I've always found that asking the person in charge of the accounting function is the best way of getting financial information. As opposed to a volunteer forum worker who lives in another country entirely.

But you keep that shouting going!

So you're not accepting it because you don't want to accept it. I'm sure that's working well for you.

 

[Czarcasm]

I'm pretty sure that Darat, as a volunteer forum administrator, would not have access to JREF's accounting systems, ergo, he is speculating.

I think I would find Darat's speculations to be somewhat more believable than yours.